I've enjoyed everything they've done with the series since 2013 but the main thing I don't like is the way they are selling it as a 'reboot' AND an origin story.

The whole hook of an origin story is that eventually you will be able to lead it into something you're already familiar with. But if Lara's entire life has been pushed forward in time like 20 years and everything about her and her family is totally different what's it the origin of? They're literally making it up as they go...it's not going anywhere. And for me it's leaving a big void where there should be satisfying connections to something...anything.

I'd have much preferred it if they introduced a new character and build them into a "Tomb Raider" through all the violent ordeals.
What if they based a new character around the original idea of Laura Cruz? Given her a new name and a unique look. Built that "nothing to lose" determination around a dark past or rough upbringing?
Because for me at this point, it may as well be a new character and it feels like the only reason her name is Lara Croft is because Tomb Raider's...got...Lara Croft in it?

I think the problem is when we normally see an origins story it's a short concise thing that last one installment or less. Crystal have taken Lara right back to reset and are showing Lara in the time when Core were happy to just state what happened.

This Lara doesn't feel like Lara yet because she isn't. In effect CD are taking a lot of time to show us how Lara gets to be the person she was, presumably, by the time we just jumped in with her as a fully formed 28 year old with Core. So it feels a lot longer and her character feels a lot more different.

I am hoping to see more progression in her hardness and independence in the next game though. I don't think it needs another bring and save 'x' friend this time. A good relationship with side characters encountered and the main enemy should sustain the next game.

Because for me at this point, it may as well be a new character and it feels like the only reason her name is Lara Croft is because Tomb Raider's...got...Lara Croft in it?

Totally agreed; and I have taken the liberty of giving her a new name. But you know why they call it Tomb Raider and Lara Croft; because of the brand recognition. It's got nothing to do anymore with Tomb Raider and Lara Croft but they're still leeching off of the name and legacy build up by that series and that character.

I agree OP. Giving fans false hope that Reboot Lara will grow into Classic Lara was a brilliant marketing strategy.

Can I tell you a tragic tale about a game company that use to be called Ensemble Studios? They were a Microsoft owned studio and they had this great idea to develop the first ever RTS game on a console (Xbox 360). They made the game and when it was presented to Microsoft, Microsoft said: "Nice little game you have created here my minions, now in order for me to publish this game I want you to go back and change all of your originally designed characters and assets into Halo looking characters." And that's how Halo Wars was born.

From Wikipedia

Quote:

Halo Wars was originally not a Halo series title. Ensemble spent 12 to 18 months working on the control scheme, using the Age of Mythology engine. The development team hacked an Age of Mythology expansion, The Titans, and used it as a prototype for control experiments. Ensemble found that managing Age of Mythology's resources, units, and buildings was too difficult with the console's controller. "The answer [to making a PC-style strategy game for a console] is actually hidden in the question," Jason Pace, Microsoft Game Studio's lead producer, told The New Zealand Herald. "It's something we believe has held strategy games back from succeeding on the console: you can't effectively bring a PC-style strategy game to the console because the fundamental game mechanic is tied to the mouse and keyboard input devices. It's not a question of just changing the control scheme to be gamepad friendly—you need to adapt the underlying strategy mechanic to make sense with the new input device." Senior designer Justin Rouse said that the team kept the controls from the research they had conducted, but scrapped the rest in favor of "build[ing] from the floor up what we need[ed]: the basics, the core of a strategy game."With the goal of making "the first great strategy game on the console", Ensemble streamlined gameplay mechanics; the game's single resource is produced at each base site, which allows players to quickly cycle through their bases instead of micromanaging multiple resources at many locations.

Once the developers were satisfied with the controls, they presented their project to Microsoft, who suggested that it be turned into a Halo game.

I think the problem is when we normally see an origins story it's a short concise thing that last one installment or less. Crystal have taken Lara right back to reset and are showing Lara in the time when Core were happy to just state what happened.

This Lara doesn't feel like Lara yet because she isn't. In effect CD are taking a lot of time to show us how Lara gets to be the person she was, presumably, by the time we just jumped in with her as a fully formed 28 year old with Core. So it feels a lot longer and her character feels a lot more different.

That should be marked in bold, next to the rules on this fórum.

May I ask if the people who hate the reboot know how the multiverses work? Reboot universe will not turn into the classic universe because both are parallel universes. Some things are still the same but there are big differences, mostly in the hero's origin story that shape her personality and her surroundings. And this is the easiest way to understand It.

When it comes to reboot Lara's relation to Tomb Raider her only companion is LAU. The reboot was building upon LAU, it has much less to do with the classics. That's why Lara has a similar backstory to LAU. It's not a cohesive evolution until you exclude the games Crystal didn't make.

I think Lara is going to become something like Underworld Lara. Dark, but vulnerable at times.

My beef is with the reboot concept in general extended to every category, not just Tomb Raider.

The idea of basically erasing the history of something already established just to build something else from scratch upon the ashes of the success of the previous product totally lacks originality and respect for the original creation for me.

I appreciate it much more when companies are willing to take risks and actually dare to create their own thing without re-using someone else's ideas as a basis to develop whatever crosses their mind. At that point, the result will inevitably be a product without a defined identity, but just a random mixture of things taken from here and there and put together instead.

This franchise now retains the same title and the same protagonist's name as a means of marketing strategy, because the brand has been known world wide for two decades and this alone helps selling to potential customers. Other minor characteristics from the previous titles are there in some form, the rest though? "Forget everything you knew about TR and Lara Croft". So fans are faced with a brand new videogame they don't recognize anymore, but are led to believe that somehow it's still their beloved franchise, when in fact it is not.

Fans become fans for very specific reasons, otherwise they would be following something else instead. If you take away what fans appreciated but slap the same name on the label to make it pass as the same thing, just sugarcoated with terms like "revamped" or "remodernized" (which is a much lighter way to imply: changed), the majority are going to have a problem with it if it doesn't bear enough resemblance with what they've come to know throughout the years.

They have the right to do everything in their power to sell as much as possible. Likewise, people against this reboot concept have all the rights to be upset for their decision to toy with a well established product.